To the Editors of the Crimson:

Because nuclear weapons have become such an important issue to most people, many arms reduction proposals have been suggested. However, because these proposals are often one-sided and ignore certain essential elements, either the United States or the Soviet Union cannot agree to them. In view of this, we have written our own proposal that should iron out some of these differences.

The goals of this proposal are:

*To make a first strike by either country an even more remote possibility.

*To eliminate the overkill capacities of both countries.

*To reduce the chances of an accidental detonation.

*To help end the arms race.

This proposal consists of seven parts.

1. Each side shall have no more than 250 EMT (megatons). At this moment the US has approximately 3053 EMT and the Soviet Union has about 3471 EMT. If used, these weapons would undoubtedly wipe out the populations of both nations and would surely cause catastrophic environmental damage. According to former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in Defense Secretary FY 1969, the proposed 250 EMT would still do significant damage to the poulations and economies of both nations, thereby making a first strike sheer stupidity. Without this reduction, however, recovery would be impossible and the entire world would be directly affected.

2. Neither side shall have MIRVs (more than one warhead per mieslle). This reduce the chances of a first strike because it reduces the temptation to attack a concentration of warheads in one location. For example, let us assume that both Side A and Side B have ten missiles with four warheads per missile, for a total of forty warheads each. If two warheads are needed to destroy one missile silo, Side A can use half of its missiles (20 warheads) in order to destroy all of Side B's missiles. This would leave Side B totally defenseless and Side A with twenty warheads! This illustrates the great temptation for either side to initiate a first strike. The idea of having just one warhead per missile is strongly supported by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and other informed individuals.

3. Immediate bilateral freeze. This includes testing, production and deployment of any nuclear device. This would terminate the MX missile and Trident, but it would also eliminate all future Soviet nuclear weapons. If it is true that the Soviets are embarking on a massive buildup this is the easiest and safest way to stop it.

4. All allies of both powers will be included. For the purpose of this treaty the nuclear weapons of France and NATO would be considered American. Similarly, any nuclear weapons under East European control would be considered Soviet. This would insure that the USSR would not supply nuclear weapons to satellite nations in order to side-step the treaty. If this clause were not included the Soviets would claim that the proposal was unfair. Other NATO and French nuclear weapons would make up only 12 percent of the West's nuclear capabilities. Therefore, this clause would not compromise the U.S. position.

5.Elimination of the distinction between missles and long range missles. Because of the proximity of the Soviet Union and Western Europe, this distinction is useless. Any medium range Western missile based in Europe can hit western Soviet Union. The Pershing and Cruise missiles now being based in Western Europe can reach the Soviet Union in ten minutes. This offers the same type of security risk that the Cuban missiles posed to the United States. The Soviet Union's SS-20s are also a dangerous threat to NATO. Not to consider these missiles to affect the strategic balance is ridiculous.

6. Both sides must allow immediate on-spot inspection of any potential nuclear site. This is obviously necessary to insure that neither side "cheats". Many people believe that this is impossible because the Soviet Union will not agree to it. However, some American negotiators have said that the Soviets have agreed to inspection on a few minor treaties and will agree to a major treaty with inspection if the treaty is properly negotiated. Some people say that it is impossible to insure that the Soviets do not build a few extra missiles in secret factories. However, a few missiles will not affect the strategic balance. What will affect the balance is a massive buildup by one side. This is probably impossible given the fact that satellites are so advanced in these modern times. Even twenty years ago, with much less sophisticated equipment, we were able to discover the Cuban missiles.

7. There should be no linkage, Linkage is the policy of recalling treaties because of "bad" Soviet behavior. This policy is based on the ridiculous belief that treaties are rewards to the Soviet Union for good behavior. Bilateral disarmament is beneficial to both nations and is necessary for the survival of our planet. Andrew Popell '87   Michael Magoon   Freshman, U.C. Berkeley